Leadership, design process, and team performance: A comparison between the Japanese and Australian R&D teams

Background: Design-oriented innovations can build long-term competitive advantage for businesses. Creative and innovative designs can lead to superior business performance and better team satisfaction. Public and private firms hence are strategically focusing on creative designs and innovations through an enormous investment in research and development (R&D). However, there has been little empirical research that defines the concept of design leadership and establishes its role in shaping design process. This study therefore aims to: a) examine the nature of design leadership, design process, team performance and satisfaction as perceived by Australian and Japanese R&D teams; and b) compare the perceptions of Australian and Japanese R&D teams toward the four variables. Research Methodology: This study implemented a quantitative survey targeting managers or supervisors of R&D teams in Japan and Australia. The survey contained 18 items capturing four components of Design leadership; namely ‘envisioning the future’ (5 items), ‘directing design investment’ (4 items), ‘manifesting strategic intent’ (4 items) and ‘creating and nurturing an environment of innovation’ (5 items). Design process was measured by three key stages namely; ‘idea generation’ (3 items), ‘design development’ (4 items) and ‘evaluation of design’ (4 items). 600 questionnaires were distributed with 165 questionnaires returned, representing approximately 27.5% response rate. Key dimensions of design leadership were extracted using the reliability test of Cronbach alpha. Statistical analyses were carried out to test the difference in design leadership between Australian and Japanese R&D teams. Research Results: The results show that Australian respondents perceived that their leaders exhibit higher levels of design leadership as compared to Japanese respondents. Design leaders from Australian firms are more likely to embed leadership in various stages of design process and thus help enhance team performance and satisfaction. However, the Japanese respondents perceived design development dimension as the most important stage in the design process. They perceived the process of bringing the idea into actual prototype of the design is critical to the success of design process. Implications: Significant differences found in design leadership between Australian and Japanese R&D teams provide evidence base for devising strategies to improve design process in shaping firm’s strategic intent. Managers can be trained in design leadership to help enhance team performance and satisfaction.